Temporal Server compiles a Worker Controller Instance module, go.temporal.io/auto-scaled-workers, into its Worker Service, and that module registers a compute provider named k8s whose function is to manage workers running in a Kubernetes cluster. The k8s provider built its Kubernetes client from the client configuration supplied in the caller's request rather than from operator configuration, and building and using that client could run a command of the caller's choosing on the Worker Service host, under the account the server process runs as. Two frontend operations reach the provider. CreateWorkerDeploymentVersion requires a namespace write role. ValidateWorkerDeploymentVersionComputeConfig is registered as a read-only namespace operation, so an authenticated caller holding only a read role in a single namespace can reach the provider through it, and that route does not require a worker deployment to already exist. Execution happens while the submitted configuration is validated, so no scaling decision, task arrival, or unusual request sequence is required. Because the Worker Service process holds the persistence credentials for every namespace in the cluster and the cluster's TLS material, the consequence reaches beyond the caller's namespace to the cluster as a whole. The provider is present in the official temporal-server binaries and container images for the affected releases. The control that keeps it unreachable is the compute provider allowlist, the dynamic configuration setting workercontroller.compute_providers.enabled. On Temporal Server 1.31.0 through 1.31.2 that allowlist does not deny by default: when the setting is unset the check is skipped and every registered compute provider is permitted, k8s included, so a stock deployment of those releases is exposed. On 1.31.3 and later 1.31 releases, and on 1.32.0 and later 1.32 releases, the allowlist denies by default, and a deployment is exposed only where k8s has been added to it. The 1.30 release line does not include the Worker Controller Instance module and is unaffected. To determine whether a deployment is affected, check the following together. The deployed Temporal Server version is in an affected range. The Worker Service is running, which it is in the default service set and therefore in a stock deployment. The effective value of workercontroller.compute_providers.enabled contains k8s, or, on 1.31.0 through 1.31.2 only, is unset; check both the global value and every namespace-constrained override, because an override can add k8s for a single namespace. And authorization is configured, meaning a real authorizer and claim mapper are in place; a deployment running with no authorizer already grants every caller unrestricted access to every namespace, so it has no namespace boundary for this to cross. Deployments that use a custom authorizer should also check whether it permits ValidateWorkerDeploymentVersionComputeConfig to callers without namespace write access. The separate per-namespace dynamic configuration setting workercontroller.enabled does not gate the affected path on any affected release.
CVE-2026-120091
This high-severity CVE scores 8.7 under a secondary CVSS source (NVD's own analysis pending). EPSS exploit probability: 0.5% (41st percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs). No GitHub Security Advisory CVSS is on record for this CVE.
Also known asEUVD-2026-115641 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-r7j7-m32j-h8w5 (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD
- High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
A fix is available — apply it.
Fixed versions, as the CVE record's CNA (Temporal Technologies Inc.) states them: "Upgrade to Temporal Server 1.32.2 or 1.31.5."
- CVSS v3
- 8.7
- EG Score
- 8.7HIGHlow confidence
- EG Risk
- 39EG Risk 39/100
EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.
How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)Severity87% × 45%Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 8.7 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.Exploitation0% × 40%No KEV listing, EG-KEV tier or EPSS when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.Automatability0% × 15%CISA's BOD 26-04 default: no one has published Automatable for this CVE, and CISA treats it as “no” for a CVE not in KEV.SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CVSS v4.0 confidentiality and integrity impact both High). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines. - EPSS PROB
- 0.5%
- EPSS %ILE
- 41st
- KEV
- Not listed
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (8.7): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.7 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 8.7 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
- EG Likelihood
- 0.5% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS. FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CVSS v4.0 confidentiality and integrity impact both High). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CVSS v4.0 confidentiality and integrity impact both High). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it
Published
November 2, 2026
Last Modified
November 3, 2026
Advisory Details (5)
Auto-updated Nov 2, 2026Require write access to validate worker deployment version compute configs
Fix merged in temporalio/temporal PR #12843 on 2026-10-30 — awaiting tagged release
https://github.com/temporalio/temporal/pull/12843Gate Kubernetes compute provider behind computeprovider_k8s build tag
Fix merged in temporalio/temporal-auto-scaled-workers PR #165 on 2026-10-30 — awaiting tagged release
https://github.com/temporalio/temporal-auto-scaled-workers/pull/165v1.31.5
Patch available: temporalio/temporal v1.31.5
https://github.com/temporalio/temporal/releases/tag/v1.31.5v1.32.2
Patch available: temporalio/temporal v1.32.2
https://github.com/temporalio/temporal/releases/tag/v1.32.2Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-120091(1)
These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.
Weakness Classification(4)
MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.
Data Freshness Timeline
(refreshed 9× in last 7d / 9× in last 30d)
Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.
- 2026-11-03 16:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 41st percentile
- 2026-11-03 16:28 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-11-03 16:28 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r7j7-m32j-h8w5 · GitHub severity HIGH
- 2026-11-03 16:11 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-11-03 16:11 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r7j7-m32j-h8w5 · GitHub severity HIGH
- 2026-11-02 23:03 UTCENISA EUVD ID recordedEUVD-2026-115641 · Source: ENISA EUVD
- 2026-11-02 22:30 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-11-02 21:28 UTCEG score recomputeFirst assessed: 8.7 HIGH
- 2026-11-02 21:26 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked
Related CVEs(same CWE)
Same CWE
10 shownCWE-78 · CWE-863
Frequently asked(5)
What is CVE-2026-120091?
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-120091 published?
Is CVE-2026-120091 actively exploited?
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-120091?
How do I remediate CVE-2026-120091?
Dependency Blast Radius
Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-120091
Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-120091?
EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.